Restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to anyone (so says the sign).

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" is common.

So what about "Got a gun? Keep out. Private Property."

Can you post that on a hotel or restaurant door? There seems to be some consensus, among USA citizens at least, that such signs may be safely (legally) ignored, at least in states that permit open or concealed carrying.

This tension provides a deep window into the American psyche, because lip service to private property and the rights of private property holders, and lip service to the right to carry weapons, are almost on a par.

So if a private property owner wants to ban guns on his or her property, but the larger state in which the property exists, allows carrying with a permit, then do civil rights trump private property owner rights?

Do companies like General Dynamics and Pepsico need to stand down and let their employees do as the state permits on public lands?

Is Corporate America aligned with the NRA on this issue?

What is the NRA position on respecting Disney's private ownership rights? Do they encourage their members to flaunt company codes?

One could argue that refusing to serve or allow admittance to those carrying weapons is akin to discriminating against a minority.

But then what about the minority who wear no shoes and no shirts? Have restaurants no right to turn them away? To refuse service?

If they do, then why not those carrying guns?

Surely having a gun and not having shoes are both matters for the same code of conduct to cover.

True, the state doesn't mandate one must wear shoes at all times, but does that make it OK to go barefoot into a restaurant that has a posted dress code?

Some restaurants require a coat and tie (for guys) let alone shoes.

I think gun owners sneaking firearms into Disneyland are thumbing their nose at private property rights.

That lets me know their property rights are in jeopardy as well.

Maybe I think their car would look prettier with a nice long scratch along the side? If they have the right to change the content of Disneyland (not their property), then I think I might have the right to mess with their paint job by the same reasoning.